Case law

Tolliver v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2024

The Sixth Circuit has explained why res judicata does not apply in these circumstances: Ordinarily, the ‘transaction’ that gives rise to a cause of action will be clearly delineated. … A law “that works an ongoing violation of constitutional rights does not become immunized from legal challenge for all time merely because no one challenges it within two [or four] years of its enactment.”

Estate of Keandre Bost v. Franklin County/Franklin County Board of Commissioners

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2024

purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well- pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly … Withrow, Lucas, and Coffey Correctional Officer Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint lacks factual allegations that state a claim for deliberate indifference and, alternatively, that they are qualifiedly immune

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio v. Rhodes

477 F. Supp. 529 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 12, 1979

Ohio is not required to participate in the medicaid program established in Title XIX. … Most bewildering is the Preterm court’s observation that “the message of the legislation was conveyed most clearly by those who were opposed to restrictions or publicly funded abortions.” 591 F.2d at 130 .

Blassingame v. Governor of the State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 2021

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … With respect to Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d or 29 U.S.C. § 3248, plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would establish that a claim for relief against defendants.

Williams v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 9, 2025

Lastly, after surveying the case law, the Magistrate Judge opined on Davis’ qualified immunity defense, concluding that, “even if [Williams] were able to establish that Davis violated his constitutional rights, those … rights were not so clearly established as to allow monetary liability.”

Callahan v. Callahan

247 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 25, 2002

A domestic relations order must meet certain requirements to qualify as a QDRO. See §§ 1056(d)(3)(C)-(E). … [it] would clearly serve an important countervailing [state] interest.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 .

Mick v. Level Propane Gases, Inc.

203 F.R.D. 324 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 2001

This principle clearly applies in the case at bar. … According to Level, individual issues predominate because proof of individual reliance is required in order to establish claims for fraud and deceit.

Doumbouya v. Mount Carmel Health System

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 2022

The nature of Plaintiff’s claim is not clearly stated. … In order to show a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, Plaintiff must establish that she was a member of a protected class, she has suffered an adverse employment action, she was qualified for the position

Allstate Insurance v. Quick

254 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 3, 2002

Notably, Congress did not state anywhere in the Westfall Act, or in its legislative history, that it intended federal employees to enjoy immunity from liability for any action committed while they were at work (i.e., “on … The primary significance of '§ 2679(d) is that it replaces the permissive language of § 1441 and § 1442, which provide that qualified defendants “may” remove an action, by stating that where the Attorney General obtains knowledge

Stager v. Hanshaw

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 10, 2024

So the general grant of immunity applies. … Because no exception to statutory immunity applies, the Court need not consider the third tier of the immunity analysis.

Williams v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

15 F. Supp. 3d 761 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 2014

Whereas New Jersey law broadly prohibits an award of punitive damages if the drug is FDA-approved, Ohio grants immunity from punitive damages only if the drug was also “manufactured and labeled in relevant and material respects … Lakie is clearly factually distinguishable on this basis. In Long , a Maryland resident, who was injured when his riding lawn mower rolled over, filed suit in the District of Columbia.

Toulmin Estate v. United States

326 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 1971

The Toulmin will clearly discloses a testamentary plan to make a bequest to charity and does not disclose a testamentary intent to favor the income beneficiaries. … The charitable remainder is ascertainable and qualifies for a deduction from gross estate under Section 2055 of the Internal Revenue Code. * * 308 F. Supp. at p. 548 .

McGrew v. The Melnotte

16 F. Cas. 130 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 15, 1861

I am not to be understood, in referring to this principle, as asserting or intimating that the Hornet is not responsible for any fault of navigation which may be clearly established by the proofs, leading to the collision … It was no part of his duty to act in that capacity, nor is there any evidence that he was at all qualified for the duty.

Culberson v. Doan

65 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 8, 1999

In 1941, the Court established the rational basis standard to determine whether Congress acted within its power in passing legislation pursuant to its Commerce Clause authority. United States v. … While Defendant concedes that women do often travel in between states, more is required to qualify for the commerce power.

S.H. v. Stickrath

251 F.R.D. 293 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 22, 2008

after Plaintiffs filed the complaint, almost three years after the parties first moved to stay adversarial proceedings pending settlement negotiations, ten months after the parties agreed to a Case Management Plan that established … In addition, OCSEA raises a number of affirmative defenses such as qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and applicable statutes of limitations.

Fowlkes v. Department of Defense

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2025

For a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination in the employment context, he must show: “(1) that he is disabled, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable … Rather, the DOD contends Fowlkes cannot establish that he is disabled within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, and, that he was not otherwise qualified for his job at WPAFB. (Doc.

Franklin v. Butler County Courts

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2025

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. … Given that report and evidence that she paid a $605 filing fee in another case on January 31, 2025, 1 it is unclear whether Plaintiff actually qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.

Monaco v. John Doe (1)

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Pitts v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

534 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

. § 1132 (a)(1)(B), Pitts claims entitlement to long term disability (“LTD”) benefits from the Long Term Disability Plan (“the Plan”) established by his employer, Amylin Pharmaceutical, Inc. … The Court finds that the evidence establishes that Pitts is entitled to disability benefits.

Community Hospital of Springfield & Clark County, Inc. v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

81 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 10, 1999

The decision must fly in the face of clearly established legal precedent. … This scenario, which tracks the plaintiffs’ evidence and the testimony of its expert witness, Frager, clearly supports an award of punitive damages.